Hacker News Reader

The authors of proprietary software control what you do with that software.

Quite clearly Free Software as a source of income works. Sell the support for the software which you have written, software you will be most familiar with. This is the model for countless companies writing Free Software.

People are malicious (I enjoy your cynicism, BTW). The difference between proprietary software and free software is that you're free to find those malicious "features" (mind the quotes) by reading the code that is available to you under Free Software. If you can't find it (the evil - not the code), you can assume that the massive community will (eventually). This is impossible in proprietary software. You don't control the software - it controls you.

That works fine for software which requires support. However, I don't want to rely on getting paid by doing support. I'd like to just write some software and for people to pay me for it.

I'd be happy to let customers have the source code, and even let them sell patches to each other and/or me. But I don't want people to legally be able to resell copies of my work, ala the GPL. If somebody wants to use the program that I wrote, I want to be paid for it. They can modify it however they want after that.

What are my options for doing this? I have released numerous programs licensed under the GPL in the past, but I have a few ideas where I would want to be directly paid for the software.

Exactly! That's my biggest problem with Stallman's beliefs. Let's take Red Hat Linux for example. Anyone can get or modify Linux free. Even Red Hat itself is open source. So Rwd Hat can't really make a buck selling Linux so they make money on training and support. If I wanted Red Hat I could certainly find an ISO somehwere online easily or I could just download Fedora. So for them it's great but what about the guy who writes a cool text editor for Linux? If that's open source then what does he do? Hope everyone sticks to the honor system and pays? How do you make money charging for support with that type of project?

There are far more projects like the example I gave than companies like Red Hat. You're far more likely to find little solo acts who either can't provide support, dont want to, or even if they did wouldn't be able to sell it because it's just not that necessary. Imagine buying a license for support for some text editor you like and calling the support line to ask how to program in some macro or something. It's just not happening.

Why do FOSS folks always equate closed software with evil? Couldnt we simply want to keep our code to ourselves so we can make money? In most cases 90% of the value of a developer's app comes from the fact that no one else has the code. Just because I've closed the source doesn't mean I'm adding back doors and spyware to my app. It just means I'm protecting my income stream. Demanding that all software release code so that people can extend the app to their liking presupposes that people want to modify the code. Of all the FOSS software I've downloaded and used I really haven't ever wanted to modify the app except in a few rare cases. It sometimes seems like this FOSS ideology completely forgets that not everyone is a programmer or assumes everyone should want to be a programmer.

What the other poster is saying is that

> The authors of proprietary software control what you do with that software.

He's fine with this, as are many other people.

And I think that's a fair point: if you really are going into the deal with eyes open, knowing you're going to be locked in and tied down to whatever platform, you should be free to make that choice. Of course, if you're smart, you'll drive a hard bargain, knowing that in the future you won't be able to. Stallman says that choice simply should not exist in that proprietary software should not exist.

The 'sell support' thing has some fairly serious limitations that make it less than ideal. Many software products - especially the end user variety - cost a lot to make. Selling 'support' for a product that works well and doesn't require much of it is not a good way to recoup all those sunk costs.

Since you cite 'countless' companies, how about we actually count a few and look at their revenue models?

* Redhat: first of all, they distribute a lot more software than they produce, which is fine, but the scope for that is pretty limited. Also, they basically use trademark law as an end-run around software freedom. You can't redistribute and call it Redhat, and you can't buy any support unless it's real Redhat, and support is a subscription, not a per-incident kind of thing.

* Mysql: they used the "GPL'ed library code" gig to try and get people wanting to embed the code in their proprietary products to cough up some cash. Legitimate business model, but would not work without proprietary software! Also, most things aren't libraries.

What else?

You have to realise that he looks at software from a developers point of view. To him using software includes the ability to extend it. I think to understand the essence of Stallmans point of view you have to realise that it is the nature of software to not just be used and provide human benefit by virtue of its existence but also to be read and understood. The next set of young hackers can today understand how to make an operating system because they can look through the implementation of a state of the art operating system. The more onerous parts of the GPL exist to protect this naive, delicate world view - one where code is perceived to be extensible art - one that is read, used and extended. I have to admit my bias - I dont agree with everything that Stallman says and does, but on the issue of the users right to read and extend code I strongly agree with him. My tribute to every software that I love and find magical is to read and understand how it works.

Ted Nelson's another person with that view, though he focuses less on licensing, and more on things like whether it's technically possible to modify software or hardware (e.g. how black-boxed, "no user serviceable parts" it is) and whether people get sufficient education to understand and manipulate the increasingly technical world we find ourselves in. I tend to agree with that; I think licensing barriers are one barrier, but not the only one, and not necessarily the biggest one. Unfortunately, some of Nelson's better books are out of print currently...

Alan Kay has some interesting comments somewhere about a software-design ethic of designing for user empowerment (rather than passive "use"), as well, though I can't seem to find a good canonical paper/talk.

As for the GPL, I personally like it for different reasons, more of quid-pro-quo reasons that Stallman might dislike, something like: you can use and modify this software however you'd like, with the sole condition that you have to share back any improvements you make. To me that seems like a fair thing to ask in return for using my code, since I wasn't obligated to release it in the first place. People who disagree can always pay me for a traditional source licensing agreement.

Open source is nice but its not a silver bullet. Most young hackets are free to view UNIX crud well state of the art features in OS design like single address space orthogonal persistence remain mostly unknown.

I'm looking at this from a developer's point of view too. I agree with Stallman on a lot of points. I dislike some of the malicious code he talks about and I also believe it is important to be able to view source. But we already have that without the FSF. This belief that all software should be free (as in liberty free) is unacceptable. We should be able to choose what happens to our work. There is a place in this world for both types of software. I love OS X. Now, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not too, what matters here is that I really don't think that the FOSS community could have built something as wonderful as that OS without the resources of a large company. Ubuntu is great and comes closest to being a real replacement for proprietary OSes but the design of the Mac and the whole ecosystem that Stallman hates is actually an incentive to choose it! I love the walled garden of the iTunes, app store, and Mac platform in general because it gives me everything I need. I don't cry about not being able to modify or see the code and Im happy to pay because I get a ton of value from it.

On the other hand I also have a Linux machine. I love switching distros frequently, using the free software that comes with it and being able to mod my system however I want.

My point is that eradicating proprietary software hurts people just as much as if we were to eradicate the FOSS movement. People choose their platform based on what they're able to do. Most users aren't programmers and prefer Windows or Mac over Linux because it's well known, easy, and gets the job done. I'm glad we have FOSS too though. Why can't the two coexist? Why is proprietary always evil? What's wrong with making money? As it stands we're living in an amazing time where we have the best of both worlds and both sides are playing to their strengths in the greatest of ways.

I don't see why you assume nothing as "wonderful" (which is a dubious perspective--I've used Mac OS quite a bit and it definitely isn't wonderful) could not have been created by the open source community. Look, for example, at KDE 4.7. It is much better than Mac OS (or, more accurately, worth is subjective so your whole argument about "wonderful Mac OS" is silly) and is open source.

Most users who are not programmers don't prefer anything--they use whatever the nice salesman at Best Buy or their slightly tech-savvy relative got them to use. On top of that, both Windows and Mac are infinitely more heavily marketed than Linux.

Proprietary software is always evil because it arbitrarily limits what you can do with something you've "bought". Almost everyone here hates DRM; proprietary software is basically software with DRM even if it isn't built in explicitly.

There is nothing wrong with making money; that whole argument is a fallacy (a false dichotomy). Just because you let people modify and redistribute the source does not preclude your making money; I bet Apple would be raking in just as much cash even if you could (and hey, some people do already) run Mac OS on different hardware.

I never meant for my opinion to be taken as fact. I was just trying to illustrate part of my point.

Stallman and FSF people keep saying you can make money with free software but it's not realistic. I never said the FSF or Stallmam were opposed to making money either. Secrecy is what keeps proprietary software valuable. If paid software shipped with source you have already lost most of your sales after selling it just once. It would be great to be able to give people the ability to modify the software but that only works if everyone sticks to the honor system. The GPL requires that you be okay with redistribution. How can you make money when you agree to let your work be distributed in any way shape or form for free. I don't give a shit if you give me credit for the work. You can say Mickey Mouse coded it as long as you pay. That's how I see it.

I completely disagree with distribution. I think it's fine for people to distribute mods and patches but not the entire program. That completely undermines the developer.

I think the FSF is fighting for a just cause but the world just isn't ready for it yet. One mistake is to take a position that calls for the eradication of any software that isn't GPL basically. The other mistake is believing people will be honest. If I could trust every user to pay for a copy of my software and only distribute patches and bug fixes then I could happily get on board. But as long as free software means that people can (and "can" usually turns into "will") redistribute my work for free in its entirety and my work gives competitors a huge leg up then I cannot get behind free software as a viable business.

The support, upgrades, and patches business model doesn't lend itself to every program. It makes sense for Red Hat but would it makes sense for, say, TextMate? The world isn't ready. Free software is wonderful for software that costs nothing but not for the majority of businesses selling software.

> One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary software makers will put malicious code in their products.

Yeah, anybody can put a trojan in Firefox. But only proprietary software can keep antifeatures - non-secret features that are detrimental to its users. DRM is the epithome of that. More here: http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/